Re: inlinable functions instead of macros

[Paul Eggert]

On 08/17/2012 04:48 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> While inlinable functions are much cleaner than macros, they have
> a very serious downside: you just end up with
> 
> lisp.h:2416: Emacs fatal error: assertion failed: found == !EQ (blv->defcell, 
> blv->valcell)
> 
> I.e. the file&line info is always the same rather than giving the
> file&line where the inlinable function was called.

On systems that use glibc we could adjust eassert so that it
also prints a backtrace, using glibc's 'backtrace' function.  See
<http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Backtraces.html>.
This would not be quite the same thing, as it would print function
names, insn offsets, and return addresses; but it would recapture
some of the ground lost here, and the backtrace info would in some
cases be more useful than what we have now.